Skip to comments.DOJ Declines to Prosecute Officials Involved in Tax Record Scandal
Posted on 07/22/2013 8:19:25 AM PDT by Cheerio
Confidential tax records of several political candidates and campaign donors were improperly accessed by government officials, but the Justice Department declined to prosecute any of the officials involved, even in one willful violation of the law, an IRS watchdog reported.
In a July 3 letter to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), the Treasury inspector general for tax administration (TIGTA) J. Russell George acknowledged that government officials had illegally accessed tax records of candidates and donors in four instances since 2006.
TIGTA determined that in three of the cases the access was inadvertent.
(Excerpt) Read more at freebeacon.com ...
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” - John F. Kennedy
If 10 million people marched on DC, it might get their attention...might!
Nuclear option? It is good that Grassley is following up but this needs to happen in the House where Impeachment initiates. Start with Holder and work your way up.
way, way, WAY too mild !
Did anyone expect prosecutions here? It’s like thinking Stalin was going to give up his power because someone objected to his methods..........
This is why 0bama is stirring up his black citizen army.. More impeachable offenses are being revealed, to include his fraudulent personal history.
Everything this administration says or does is misdirection or an outright lie.
Translation = The “One” gave the orders.
“...DOJ Declines to Prosecute Officials Involved in Tax Record Scandal...”
Huh...Now there’s a surprise...
Re. your link
Unenforced laws are no laws at all.
I am expecting the Republicans to do something about it. It's time to follow through on the threats to deny funding to the IRS until those that have broken the law are prosecuted, fired or impeached.
I’m shocked, shocked I say!
I’m shocked, shocked I say!
Sorry, I guess I was more shocked than I thought.
In the context of Obama's promise of transparent government, he meant that in "transparent", there is nothing there to see.
Antonin Scalia effectively codified the unique independent power of the Fourth Branch into the hands of all citizens sitting as federal grand jurors. In discussing that power and unique independence granted to the grand jury, the United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992), Justice Scalia, delivering the opinion of the court, laid down the law of the land:
[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history, Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It `is a constitutional fixture in its own right. United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977).
I submit to you that this passage sets the stage for a revolutionary knew context necessary and Constitutionally mandated to we the people, THE FOURTH BRANCH of the Government of the United States. Besides, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches, I submit that there is a fourth branch, THE GRAND JURY, and we the people when sitting as grand jurors, are, as Scalia quoted in US v. Williams, a constitutional fixture in its own right. Yes, damn it. That is exactly what the grand jury is, and what it was always intended to be.
Scalia also stated, that the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside Id.
And finally, to seal the deal, Scalia hammered the point home:
In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arms length. Judges direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a). [504 U.S. 36, 48]
This miraculous quote says it all, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. The Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, gives rise to a FOURTH BRANCH of Government, THE GRAND JURY. We the people have been charged with oversight of the government in our roles as grand jurors.
Is there no check to protect/by pass against a criminal AG?